Maryland Criminal Attorneys Blog

Last month, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a landmark opinion in the case of Missouri v. McNeely holding that police are not permitted to force individuals suspected of driving while intoxicated to submit to a blood test without first obtaining a warrant.

In McNeely, the defendant, McNeely, was stopped by a Missouri police officer for speeding and committing a lane violation. Upon making contact with McNeely, the officer observed that McNeely's eyes were red and glassy and breath smelled of alcohol. McNeely performed poorly on field sobriety tests and refused to submit to a portable breathalyzer test. Chemical testing showed that McNeely's blood alcohol content was above the legal limit and he was charged with driving while intoxicated.

McNeely moved to suppress the results of the blood test, contending that the warrantless blood draw violated his Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. The trial court agreed, holding that there was no exigency that justified the warrantless taking of McNeely's blood.

On appeal, the Missouri Supreme Court affirmed based on Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757, wherein the Supreme Court held that a warrantless blood test would be justified under circumstances where the officer "might reasonably have believed that he was confronted with an emergency, in which the delay necessary to obtain a warrant, under the circumstances, threatened 'the destruction of evidence."

In applying the Schmerber analysis to McNeely's case, the Missouri Supreme Court concluded that it was a routine DWI investigation where no factors other than the natural dissipation of blood alcohol suggested that there was an emergency excusing the warrant requirement.

The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari to answer the question, "Does the "natural metabolization of alcohol in the bloodstream presents a per se exigency that justifies an exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement for nonconsensual blood testing in all drunk-driving cases[?]" Writing for a 5-4 majority, Justice Sotomayor authored an opinion affirming the decision of the Missouri Supreme Court.

Missouri argued that, because the amount of alcohol in the blood dissipated with time, police needed to be able to conduct warrantless blood draws to preserve evidence of intoxication. The Court recognized that, although the body's natural metabolic processes in a person's blood begins to dissipate once the alcohol is fully absorbed and continues to decline until the alcohol is eliminated."

However, the Court ultimately rejected the State's position, concluding that, although "some circumstances will make obtaining a warrant impractical such that the dissipation of alcohol from the bloodstream will support an exigency justifying a properly conducted warrantless blood test" that does not mean the Court should depart from "careful case-by-case assessment of exigency and adopt the categorical rule proposed by [Missouri]."

The criminal defense attorneys of Brassel, Alexander & Rice, LLC have extensive experience defending the Constitutional rights of individuals that have been accused of DWI or DUI. If you or someone you know has been charged with a DWI or DUI in Maryland, contact the attorneys of Brassel, Alexander & Rice, LLC today.

In February, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a milestone opinion in the case of Bailey v. United States holding that police may not follow and detain a suspect while awaiting the issuance of a search warrant, even if the individual is observed leaving the premises the police intend to search.

In Bailey, New York police officers received information from a confidential informant alleging that he had observed a gun in an apartment where he had purchased drugs. Based upon this tip, the officers obtained a warrant for the apartment and began preparing to execute the search. While the search team was preparing, two detectives at the scene observed the defendant, Chunon Bailey, leave the gated area above the apartment and drive away in a car. The detectives followed the vehicle and stopped it.

The detectives performed a pat-down of Bailey, finding keys belonging to the apartment. Bailey initially admitted to residing at the apartment but later denied it when he was advised of the search. The detectives took Bailey back to the apartment where the search had already uncovered a firearm and drugs. Bailey was charged with three federal felonies for possession of the drugs and firearm.

The District Court denied Bailey's motion to suppress the apartment keys and the statements he had made to the detectives, holding that Bailey's detention was justified under Michigan v. Summers (1981).

In Summers, the Supreme Court established a rule allowing police officers executing a search warrant "to detain the occupants of the premises while a proper search is conducted," even if there is no particular suspicion that the detainee is involved in criminal activity or poses a danger to the officers. The Summers decision recognized three interests that justify detention of occupants of premises subject to a search warrant: (1) officer safety; (2) facilitation of the completion of the search; and (3) preventing flight of the suspect.

Bailey's case proceeded to jury trial where he was found guilty on all charges. On appeal, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's denial of the suppression motion based on Summers.

The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve a conflict between the Federal Courts of Appeals regarding the application of Summers to cases involving detention of suspects beyond the immediate vicinity of premises covered by a search warrant. Writing for a 6-3 majority, Justice Kennedy authored the Bailey decision, holding that none of the three interests identified in Summers applied with the same force to the detention of Bailey. The Court opined that the detention of a current occupant of premises to be searched "represents only an incremental intrusion on personal liberty when the search of a home has been authorized by a valid warrant" whereas the detention of an individual outside the immediate vicinity of the premises to be searched constitutes an additional level of intrusiveness.

Accordingly, limiting the Summers rule to the "area where an occupant pant poses a real threat to the safe and efficient execution of a search warrant ensures that the scope of the detention incident to a search is confined to its underlying justification."
The Court concluded that, because Bailey was stopped at a point beyond "any reasonable understanding of immediate vicinity" the detention was unconstitutional unless supported by other reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. Accordingly, the Court reversed and remanded the case to the Second Circuit to determine whether such reasonable suspicion existed.

The criminal defense attorneys of Brassel, Alexander & Rice, LLC have extensive experience defending the Constitutional rights of individuals that have been charged with a crime. If you or someone you know has been charged with a crime in Maryland, contact the attorneys of Brassel, Alexander & Rice, LLC today.

On March 26, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court released a landmark decision in the case of Florida v. Jardines holding that police use of drug-sniffing canines to investigate a tip regarding a marijuana farm at a Miami, Florida home infringed on the U.S. Constitution's Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches.

In Jardines, a Miami police detective received an unverified tip that marijuana was being grown in the home of the defendant, Joelis Jardines. Based on the tip, police began surveilling the Jardine's residence, but, observing no activity around the home and not being able to see inside the windows, approached the front porch with a drug-sniffing canine. After the canine "alerted" to the presence of drugs, the police applied for and received a warrant to search the residence. During the search, the officers discovered several marijuana plants, leading to Jardines being charged with trafficking in marijuana.

Prior to trial, Jardines filed a motion to suppress the marijuana, arguing that the canine investigation was an unreasonable search under the Fourth Amendment. The trial court granted Jardines' motion and suppressed the evidence obtained during the search.

On appeal, the Florida Third District Court of Appeal reversed and the Florida Supreme Court quashed the decision of the Third District Court of Appeal, holding that the search was unsupported by probable cause, rendering the warrant based upon information gathered in that search invalid. The State of Florida appealed to the United States Supreme Court for review, and certiorari was granted.

The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the Florida Supreme Court's decision, opining that the police had unconstitutionally intruded upon the curtilage of Jardines' home. Curtilage is the area "immediately surrounding and associated with the home" and is considered part of the home itself for Fourth Amendment purposes.

Justice Antonin Scalia authored a 5-4 opinion for the majority, holding, "[T]he government's use of trained police dogs to investigate the home and its immediate surroundings is a 'search' within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment." Scalia continued, acknowledging that, under normal circumstances, visitors to a residence have an implicit license to "approach the home by the front path, knock promptly, wait briefly to be received, and then (absent invitation to linger longer) leave."

Scalia reasoned that complying with the terms of a traditional invitation does not require expert legal knowledge and police may approach a home and knock because that is what a private citizen would be permitted to do. However, in Jardines' case, the police went too far by introducing a trained police dog to explore the area around the home in hopes of discovering incriminating evidence.

As this blog has discussed before, recent decisions by the Supreme Court, including Jardines, have significant implications for criminal defendants seeking to challenge warrantless vehicle searches based upon canine drug-sniffs.

The criminal defense attorneys of Brassel, Alexander & Rice, LLC have extensive experience defending the Constitutional rights of individuals that have been charged with a crime. If you or someone you know has been charged with a crime in Maryland, contact the attorneys of Brassel, Alexander & Rice, LLC today.

Last month, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a landmark opinion in the case of Florida v. Harris (2013), holding that an alert by a dog trained to detect drugs is valid and sufficient to establish probable cause to conduct a warrantless search of an automobile.

This issue was originally addressed by the Florida Supreme Court in Harris v. State (2011). In Harris, a Florida canine police officer conducted a traffic stop of the defendant's truck for having an expired tag. Upon approaching the vehicle, the officer observed that the defendant was shaking, breathing rapidly, and could not sit still.

The officer requested the defendant consent to a search of the vehicle, but the defendant refused. The officer then deployed his drug-sniffing dog. The canine alerted to the door handle of the driver's side of the vehicle during a "free air sniff" of the exterior of the truck. Upon searching the vehicle the officer found various chemicals used in the manufacture of methamphetamine.

The defendant was charged with possession of the chemical pseudoephedrine with intent to use it to manufacture methamphetamine and filed a motion to suppress the evidence seized during the search of the vehicle. The trial court denied the motion to suppress and, on appeal, the appellate court affirmed.

The Florida Supreme Court later overturned the appellate court's decision opining, "[T]hat evidence that the dog has been trained and certified to detect narcotics, standing alone, is not sufficient to establish the dog's reliability for purposes of determining probable cause -- especially since training and certification in this state are not standardized and thus each training and certification program may differ with no meaningful way to assess them."

In reversing the Florida Supreme Court's decision, the U.S. Supreme Court declared that the state does not have to show that a drug dog is reliable, rather, the defense must prove that the canine is unreliable through expert testimony or other evidence challenging the training or methods used by police.

Writing for a unanimous Court, Justice Elena Kagan wrote: "Requiring the State to introduce comprehensive documentation of the dog's prior hits and misses in the field, and holding that absent field records will preclude a finding of probable cause no matter how much other proof the State offers, is the antithesis of a totality-of-the-circumstances approach."

The Supreme Court's decision in this case has significant implications for criminal defendants seeking to challenge warrantless vehicle searches based upon canine drug-sniffs. Although the Supreme Court has previously held that police may utilize drug dogs during traffic stops and also that police may search cars without a warrant when they have determined there is probable cause to do so, it has never before gone so far as to proclaim that a canine's alert alone is sufficient to establish probable cause to search.

The criminal defense attorneys of Brassel, Alexander & Rice, LLC have extensive experience defending the Constitutional rights of individuals that have been charged with a crime. If you or someone you know has been charged with a crime in Maryland, contact the attorneys of Brassel, Alexander & Rice, LLC today.

On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case of Maryland v. King, and began deliberation of the question presented, "Does the Fourth Amendment allow States to collect and analyze DNA from people arrested and charged with serious crimes?"

The Case
The Maryland Court of Appeals originally considered this case in King v. State. In King, the defendant, a man from Wicomico County, Maryland, was arrested in 2009 for pointing a shotgun at a group of people. The defendant eventually pled guilty to a misdemeanor, however, prior to entering his plea and while in custody, police swabbed the inside of the defendant's cheek in order to obtain a DNA sample for Maryland's criminal DNA database. At the time police took his DNA, the defendant had not yet been convicted of the crime for which he was arrested.

By entering his DNA sample into state and federal databases, police matched the defendant's DNA to that obtained from a 2003 unsolved rape case that occurred in Salisbury, Maryland. The defendant ultimately pled not guilty to the rape charges on an agreed statement of facts in order to preserve his right to appeal certain constitutional issues he had raised at the trial level. The defendant was convicted and sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole.

Appellate Decision
The Court of Appeals held that the Maryland DNA Collection Act, as applied to the defendant as an arrestee, was unconstitutional, and therefore the DNA evidence used against the defendant at trial should have been suppressed. The Court concluded that arrestees have a "sufficiently weighty and reasonable expectation of privacy against warrantless, suspicionless searches that is not outweighed by the State's purported interest in assuring proper identification as to the crimes for which they are charged at the time."

Supreme Court Analysis
The Supreme Court's decision in this case will have significant implications for criminal defendants and law enforcement with regard to current DNA practices across the nation. Many states, including Maryland, have adopted DNA collection practices that involve obtaining samples from arrestees who have not yet been convicted of a crime.

There are a myriad of ethical, legal, moral, and practical reasons weighing against the collection of DNA samples from arrestees prior to their conviction. As a practical matter, collecting more DNA samples costs more money and slows searches through DNA databases that have more samples. Further, as DNA contains some of the most intimate personal information about individuals, its collection implicates various privacy concerns. Finally, the law generally requires law enforcement to have some justification for the collection of bodily fluids from an individual; however, it would appear that some of the DNA collections laws attempt to skirt these requirements.

The criminal defense attorneys of Brassel, Alexander & Rice, LLC have extensive experience defending the Constitutional rights of individuals that have been charged with a crime. If you or someone you know has been charged with a crime in Maryland, contact our team today.

As the battle over whether marijuana should be legalized rages across the United States, a new bill has been introduced in the Maryland State Legislature that would decriminalize the use and/or possession of small amounts of marijuana.

Maryland Senate Bill 297 ("SB 297"), proposed by Senator Bobby Zirkin, would eliminate the potential for jail time as a punishment for possession of marijuana in favor of a maximum fine of $100. Further, SB 297 would remove the offense of simple marijuana possession from the state criminal code. This constitutes possession of anything less than ten grams. The measure would reclassify the offense similar to a traffic violation and offenders would only be subject to a fine.

Former Baltimore and Maryland State Police Officer and current Executive Director of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP), Neill Franklin, a thirty four year law enforcement veteran, was scheduled to provide testimony regarding SB 297 at a hearing last Tuesday. During a 2011 interview , Franklin argued that current state marijuana rules force law enforcement to waste significant time and resources making arrests for minor offenses such as simple possession and that police would be better served dedicating their time to solving serious crimes.

According to Franklin, "The current laws force police officers in Maryland to waste hour after hour processing marijuana possession arrests. Can you imagine how many more burglaries, rapes and murders we could solve if we put these wasted man-hours toward good use? Marijuana prohibition constitutes a serious threat to public safety."

Also scheduled for Tuesday's hearing was a presentation by Harvard University economist Jeffrey Miron about his recent study regarding the cost of enforcing marijuana laws. Miron's study determined that Maryland spends over $236 million annually to enforce its marijuana laws, most of which is devoted to prosecuting criminal cases. The study concluded that decriminalizing small amounts of marijuana would not only decrease the caseload for public defenders and prosecutors but also the dockets of local and state courts.

As has been discussed previously by this blog, the seriousness of marijuana offenses is dependent largely upon the amount of drugs involved. Under Maryland Annotated Code §5-601, anyone who uses or possesses marijuana is subject to imprisonment not exceeding 1 year or a fine not exceeding $1,000 or both. However, traffickers of marijuana, individuals in possession of large amounts of marijuana, or those who have previously been convicted of drug offenses may be subject to prosecution for more serious offenses with harsher penalties.

Further complicating this situation is that, even if Maryland votes to decriminalize marijuana possession, federal law still prohibits it. Accordingly, even though a person might be legally in possession under Maryland law, they could still be subjected to prosecution under federal law.

The criminal defense attorneys of Brassel, Alexander & Rice, LLC have extensive experience defending individuals charged with drug crimes in both state and federal courts. If you or someone you know has been charged with a drug crime in Maryland, contact the attorneys of Brassel, Alexander & Rice, LLC today.

Standardized Field Sobriety Tests ("SFST's") are a set of assessments administered by police officers to individuals believed to be driving while under the influence of alcohol or drugs and are intended to detect signs of impairment referred to as "clues."

SFST's were developed as a result of research that was conducted in the 1970's at the Southern California Research Institute, and was funded by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. The most common SFST's utilized by law enforcement are the One-Leg Stand test, the Walk and Turn test, and the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus test.

One Leg Stand Test
The One Leg Stand test is classified as a "divided attention" test, meaning that, under normal circumstances, it can be properly performed by most individuals. Because a person impaired by alcohol or drugs generally has difficulty dividing their attention between mental and physical tasks, they are unable to perform the test successfully.

In the one leg stand test, the subject is asked to stand with one foot approximately six inches off the ground and count thousands until instructed to put the foot back down. The test is timed for thirty seconds while the administrator looks for the following clues of impairment:

● Hopping jumping to keep balance
● Swaying while balancing
● Putting arms out to balance
● Putting the foot down on the ground

According to the NHTSA standards, if the subject exhibits two or more clues, he or she is presumed to have a blood alcohol content of 0.08 or greater. The results of the one leg stand test can be negatively affected if it is administered at night, without an actual line for the subject to walk on, or if there is a pre-existing medical condition, or on an irregular surface, among other reasons.

Walk and Turn Test
The Walk and Turn Test is also a divided attention test. During the walk and turn test, the subject is asked to take nine steps along a straight line, turn on one foot, and take nine steps back to the starting point. There are eight potential clues of impairment for the walk and turn test:

● Poor balance during the instruction phase
● Starting the test before instructed to
● Stopping while walking to maintain or regain balance
● Failing to touch feet heel-to-toe on each step
● Stepping off the line while walking
● Putting out arms to maintain or regain balance
● Turning improperly
● Taking an incorrect number of steps

According to the NHTSA standards, if the subject exhibits two or more clues, he or she is presumed to have a blood alcohol content of 0.08 or greater. The walk and turn test can be negatively affected by the surface it is conducted on and by some physical conditions that, for example, affect balance, among other things.

Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus Test
Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus test is the involuntary jerking of the eye occurring naturally as it moves to the side. Nystagmus usually occurs when the eye rotates at high peripheral angles. Alcohol or drug impairment can amplify nystagmus and cause it to happen at lesser angles. Alcohol or drug impairment can also impair the eye's ability to smoothly track a moving object.

During the horizontal gaze nystagmus test, the subject's eyes are observed to see if they are able to follow a slowly moving object, such as a finger or pen, horizontally without nystagmus occurring. Each eye can exhibit up to three clues for a total of six:

● The eye is not able to follow the object smoothly
● The eye jerks at the maximum deviation, the farthest point it can move to the side
● The angle at which eye jerking begins is within 45 degrees of center

According to the NHTSA standards, if the subject exhibits four or more clues, he or she is presumed to have a blood alcohol content of 0.08 or greater. The horizontal gaze nystagmus test is often criticized for failing to account for certain health conditions, such as glaucoma, that negatively affect the ability to successfully perform the test. Further, various chemicals, such as caffeine and nicotine, can potentially cause nystagmus in the absence of alcohol or drugs.

The criminal defense attorneys of Brassel, Alexander & Rice, LLC have extensive experience defending individuals charged with driving while under the influence of alcohol or drugs. If you or someone you know has been charged with DUI or DWI in Maryland, contact our attorneys today.

Last week, Delaware Online reported that a routine traffic stop turned into a huge drug bust after Maryland State Police discovered over 350 pounds of marijuana in the car of a New Jersey man. According to police, on December 30th Donald P. Gayle was stopped for failing to move into the left lane as he drove by several stopped police cruisers on U.S. Route 113. Adopted in 2010, Maryland's "move over" law requires motorists to switch to an available lane when passing a stopped emergency vehicle such as a police cruiser or ambulance.

According to the story, the trooper that pulled Gayle over became suspicious during the stop and radioed for a drug sniffing canine. A drug dog alerted to the vehicle and the subsequent search of the vehicle revealed five duffel bags containing three cellophane wrapped packages of marijuana. The total weight of the marijuana was more than 350 pounds and had an estimated street value of $400,000.

Gayle has been charged with several felonies, including importing a controlled dangerous substance, possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance, and possession of marijuana. Under Maryland Annotated Code §5-614, any person who brings 45 kilograms or more of marijuana in to Maryland that is not authorized to do so is guilty of a felony and subject to up to 25 years and a fine of up to $50,000.

In Gayle's case, however, he faces up to 50 years in prison because he is alleged to be a repeat drug offender. According to the story, Gayle was previously stopped in February of 2008 for running a red light. During the traffic stop, police discovered over 100 pounds of marijuana hidden in Gayle's vehicle. Gayle was convicted of a felony drug offense and served three years in prison.

Gayle's situation is further complicated by the fact that, because police believed he may have been transporting the drugs over state lines, the federal Department of Homeland Security was contacted. If the authorities can show that Gayle crossed state lines with the marijuana or intended to, he could be prosecuted under federal drug laws, which often carry substantial mandatory minimum sentences.

Search & Seizure Issues
Likely to become a point of contention in Gayle's case is whether police had a sufficient reason to stop and search his vehicle. The law requires that, in order to stop a vehicle, a police officer must have reasonable suspicion that the driver is involved in criminal activity. This relatively low standard can generally be established by a minor traffic violation and is often difficult, though not impossible, to overcome.

In order to search a vehicle, however, a police officer must meet the higher standard of probable cause. Probable cause for a search exists where the totality of the circumstances establishes a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place.

The criminal defense attorneys of Brassel, Alexander & Rice, LLC have extensive experience defending individuals charged with drug crimes in both state and federal courts. If you or someone you know has been charged with a drug crime in Maryland, contact the attorneys of Brassel, Alexander & Rice, LLC today.

The rights of many criminal defendants are derived from the state and federal constitutions. Many of these rights have to do with procedural steps that must be followed in any criminal proceedings to ensure that the community members are treated fairly. For example, the well-known requirement to read people their Miranda rights upon arrest is rooted specifically in the federal constitution's 5th Amendment prohibiting compelled self-incrimination. Similarly, all of the somewhat intricate rules about search and seizure requirements for police officers stem from legal challenges based on the federal constitution's 4th Amendment.

However, beyond these procedural requirements, there are some instances where constitutional challenges related to criminal defendants deal with more substantive issues. The classic example of this involves the death penalty. At both the state and federal level, some attorneys have argued that use of the death penalty in all cases, for certain crimes, or for certain defendants, violated constitutional provisions. These legal challenges are somewhat different from other procedural challenges in that they seek to permanently end the ability of the state to commit execution--not just force the state to follow certain guidelines before doing so.

Maryland Death Penalty Challenge
In fact, just this week the Maryland Court of Appeals heard arguments in a case involving a man's death row appeal. The defendant was sentenced to death following his conviction for killing a man during a robbery in 1998. His attorney is utilizing a novel argument in an effort to get the sentence reduced. In hearings conducted on Thursday, the attorney argued that the Maryland Constitution limits use of the death penalty only to cases involving treason.

As discussed in a recent article on the case, the criminal defense attorney made the argument that a portion of the Maryland Declaration of Rights places a limit on the interpretation of the death penalty in the state. A clause in the Declaration of Rights denounces "sanguinary laws" unless used to enhance the "safety of the state." "Sanguinary" literally refers to actions involving violence and bloodshed. In the context of criminal law, it speaks to punishments of physical harm, under which the death penalty obviously falls. The attorney argued that the "safety of the state" only applies to things like suppressing rebellion, not any individual crime--no matter how heinous.

For their part, attorneys for the Maryland Attorney General's office argued that the writers of the state constitution obviously intended capital punishment to be legal, as some of those writers became governor and signed death notices. They further noted that decades of case law suggest that there is no incongruity between use of the death penalty and the state constitution.

It is important to note the context in which this takes place. In 2006 the state high court found the procedural elements of the state capital punishment system lacking, putting a temporary halt to executions. The Governor has yet to suggest any alternative regulations, and executions cannot resume until that is done. No one has been executed in the state since 2005. On top of all of that there is a legislative push by some to permanently eliminate capital punishment in the state--an action which would make these courts proceedings moot.

Whatever the outcome, the battle over the death penalty in Maryland is yet another reminder of the complexity of many criminal law matters. If you are charged with a crime, be sure to get in touch with Brassel Alexander & Rice, LLC to defend your rights every step of the way.

The Supreme Court decided last week that there was no constitutional bar to mandated strip searches for all individuals that are to be admitted into a jail's general population. In other words, strip searches by the police are permissible no matter the infraction - even for arrests for crimes as minor as failing to pay a fine or driving without insurance

Our Annapolis-based criminal defense attorneys have to knowledge and background to protect the rights of criminal defendants. Every stage in a criminal proceeding, from the arrest and initial booking (and potentially-accompanying strip search) to the culmination of a trial are moments when a defendant needs proper representation to protect his or her rights.

In the Supreme Court's decision, Florence v. Board of Freeholders, the Supreme Court addressed Albert Florence's claims that his civil rights were violated. Mr. Florence was arrested in 2005 when his car, being driven by his wife, was pulled over by the police for speeding. His crime? According to an inaccurate warrant, he had failed to pay a fine; in reality, the warrant should not have been issued, but was because of a computer error. After his arrest, he was twice strip searched, and then held for six days without charge, until the police realized the mistake.

The Supreme Court had to determine whether Mr. Florence's rights were violated by the two strip searches, following his arrest for a nonviolent crime, when there was no suspicion that he had drugs or weapons on him. Ultimately, the Supreme Court held that Mr. Florence's rights were not violated, because jail security was more pressing than Mr. Florence's privacy. According to Justice Kennedy, who drafted the opinion,

Courts must defer to the judgment of correctional officials unless the record contains substantial evidence showing their policies are an unnecessary or unjustified response to problems of jail security.

While those words might suggest some instance where strip searches would be unreasonable, such would almost never be the case. Any time an individual is coming into the jail, concerns for the security of the officers and other inmates will override the arrestee's personal issues of privacy. The only time that would not apply is if there is substantial evidence that an individual does not pose a risk. And the fact that the individual was arrested for a minor crime does not meet the "substantial evidence" standard. "Correctional officials must be permitted to devise reasonable search policies to detect and deter the possession of contraband in their facilities."

Continue reading "You Can Be Strip Searched Upon Arrest in Maryland" »

The United States Supreme Court today ruled that criminal defendants have the constitutional right to effective representation when making the decision as to whether or not to accept a plea bargain. In two paired cases, Lafler v. Cooper and Missouri v. Frye, the Court ruled that an attorney's mistakes at the plea bargain stage can render a defendant's plea ineffectual.

Our Annapolis criminal defense attorneys are experienced at giving our clients the right advice with regard to all of the client's available options, including plea deals. In today's legal climate, more often than not, criminal charges are resolved by way of plea bargains, rather than trials. Our attorneys are prepared to provide our clients with the proper guidance as to what will give the clients the best results possible.

In Cooper, Cooper's attorney informed him that he could not be convicted of assault with intent to murder, because of the attorney's belief that Michigan law did not permit a finding of intent to murder when the victim was shot below the waist; the attorney was wrong. As a result, Cooper rejected a plea deal, under which he would have received a recommended 51-to-85-month sentence. He was subsequently convicted at trial, and received the mandatory minimum 185-to-360-month sentence.

In Frye, the defendant was arrested for driving with a revoked license, the third time he had been arrested for that offense. Frye faced a maximum of four years in prison on the charge. The prosecutor in the case provided Frye's attorney with an offer to reduce the charge, making it a misdemeanor, with a 90 day jail sentence. Frye's attorney, however, did not bother to relay the offer to his client. Frye ultimately plead guilty to the charge, without the benefit of the offered plea bargain, and was sentenced to three years in prison.

Continue reading "Maryland Defendants Protected by Supreme Court Plea Deal Decision" »

In a case profiled here in October, the United States Supreme Court issued a ruling this week reversing the conviction of Antoine Jones. The case held the potential to drastically alter the Court's Fourth Amendment jurisprudence, but due to the very narrow grounds the Court based its ruling on, many of the issues related to warrantless electronic monitoring of suspects has been left to future cases.

While the Fourth Amendment may seem technical or scholastic to some, the meaning of the right to be secure in one's person and possessions has far-reaching effects in most criminal cases. The charges the State brings against a defendant, whether murder charges or drug possession, almost always implicate the Fourth Amendment. Our experienced Annapolis drug possession attorneys have the knowledge and understanding of the Fourth Amendment necessary to protect our clients' rights.

The Supreme Court held that the case was a "classic trespassory search" within the meaning originally provided by the framers of the Fourth Amendment, because of the nature of the police's action: "[t]he Government physically occupied private property for the purpose of obtaining information.". The earliest case law on the Fourth Amendment only addressed violations of privacy that involved physical trespass. For example, in Olmstead v. United States, decided in 1928, the Court held that there was no Fourth Amendment violation when a wiretap was attached to telephone wires on public streets; without a physical trespass to an individual's property or person, there was no search.

The Court altered its analysis of what a Fourth Amendment search was in Katz v. United States, a 1967 case in which a listening device was placed on the outside of a public telephone booth. With that case, the Court expanded the protections of the Fourth Amendment to include more than situations where there was a physical trespass to a person or his or her property. Under Katz, a Fourth Amendment violation occurred when the police violated an individual's "reasonable expectation of privacy." The Katz decision did not, however, get rid of the restrictions on traditional "trespassory" searches.

Thus, applied to this case, the Court held that the police's action in placing the GPS tracking device on Jones' vehicle constituted a Fourth Amendment search because there was a physical trespass to his property. Because the police did not have a valid warrant at the time they placed the tracking device, they violated the Fourth Amendment, and the Court reversed Jones' conviction.

What is perhaps most interesting to this decision is what it did not decide. Justice Scalia, along with Justices Roberts, Thomas, and Kennedy joined, provided what is considered to be the majority opinion, because Justice Sotomayor concurred with the opinion. Justice Sotomayor suggested that she wished the majority had expanded its opinion, pointing out that "[i]n cases of electronic or other novel modes of surveillance that do not depend upon a physical invasion on property, the majority opinion's trespassory test may provide little guidance."

Continue reading "Supreme Court Decides - But Doesn't Decide - Issue of GPS Tracking" »

Detroit Tigers first baseman Miguel Cabrera recently plead guilty to DUI in St. Lucie County, Florida. Notable in the case is the plea deal his attorney negotiated for him, avoiding jail time and allowing him to put the case behind him before spring training starts up.

Our experienced Maryland DUI attorneys have years of practice negotiating the best possible results for our clients, in legal representation ranging from DUIs to drug arrests and beyond. Our attorneys recognize that each case is different and requires particularized focus, both related to the facts of the case and the client's individual needs.

The facts of Cabrera's arrest show that his February 2011 arrest was not a run-of-the-mill DUI. After arguing with and threatening a manager and a police officer at a bar when he was refused service, Cabrera took off in his Land Rover before other Fort Pierce, Florida police arrived on the scene. Later that night, a sheriff's deputy came across Cabrera's truck, which had smoke rising from the engine. The police noted that Cabrera had bloodshot, watery eyes, and slurred speech. With officers on the scene, Cabrera grabbed a bottle of scotch and took a drink - a move that probably did not help his cause!

Cabrera actually faced a number of charges, including the DUI, two resisting an officer charges, and an open container violation, which his attorney was able to negotiate into the plea deal. As a result of the deal, Cabrera must comply with a number of sanctions: he was fined $500, had to pay about $1400 in court costs, is on probation for a year, must attend a couple of classes and perform 50 hours of community service, and had his driver's license suspended for six months. Despite the sanctions imposed, none of which appear to be especially onerous to Cabrera, the plea deal benefited him because it allowed him to focus his time and energy on the upcoming baseball season, and avoided any possibility of jail time. While "celebrity justice" probably played a bit of a role in the outcome, it looks like the attorney obtained a very favorable deal for his client under the circumstances.

Our attorneys are experienced in defending DUI, DWI, and other drunk-driving charges in Baltimore, Annapolis, and throughout Maryland. Each case is different, but our experienced attorneys work to achieve the best possible deal for each of our clients' particular circumstances.

This morning, the Maryland Court of Appeals ruled that, under the Public Defender Act, all indigent defendants have a right to representation at the initial appearance before the District Court Commissioner.

Our experienced Baltimore criminal defense attorneys can handle client representation at all stages of criminal proceedings, from the initial appearance through to a court or jury trial.

The initial appearance before the District Court Commissioner is an important stage of a defendant's exposure to the criminal justice system. At this appearance, the Commissioner tells the defendant of the charge(s) and the allowable penalties, and provides the defendant with a copy of the statement of charges. The Commissioner advises the defendant of his or her right to counsel, and of the right to a preliminary hearing. Thereafter, the Commissioner, in cases where a defendant was arrested without a warrant, determines whether there was probable cause to support the defendant's arrest.

If the Commissioner determines that the defendant's arrest was supported by probable cause, the Commissioner then determines whether the defendant is eligible for release or whether bail should be set. This determination can be vital to a defendant, as a Commissioner's decision to impose bail, as the Court found, is summarily confirmed by a Judge at a subsequent bail review hearing. Under Maryland Rule 2-416, the Commissioner considers (1) the nature and circumstances of the offense (including the supporting evidence at the potential sentence upon conviction), (2) the defendant's prior record of appearance at court proceedings; (3) the defendant's family ties, employment status and history, financial resources, reputation, character and mental condition, length of residence in the community, and length of residence in this State*; (4) any recommendation of an agency that conducts pretrial release investigations; (5) any recommendation of the State's Attorney; (6) any information presented by the defendant or defendant's counsel; (7) the danger of the defendant to the community; (8) the danger of the defendant to himself or herself; and (9) any other relevant factor factor related to the defendant's likelihood of appearance at trial and the risk to the safety of others, such as prior convictions. The Commissioner, applying this Rule, can and often does determine that bail should be set. If the defendant is unable to meet his bail, he or she will be held in jail until a bail review hearing, and possibly until his or her trial date.

The "Public Defender Act" is codified at section 16-201 of the Criminal Procedure Article of the Maryland Code. The Court relied on two provisions of the Public Defender Act to find the right to representation. The Court noted that under section 16-204(b)(1)(i), indigent defendants are entitled to representation in proceedings where they are alleged to have committed a "serious offense." In section 16-204(b)(1)(iv), indigent defendants are statutorily guaranteed the right to an attorney at any other proceeding in which they face the possibility of commitment to jail. Between the two sections, all hearings before the Commissioner are covered. The former section addresses serious crime, and the latter section encompasses all other defendants, because the hearing is a determination of whether or not bail will be set; by definition, as the Commissioner may decline to release an individual on his or her own recognizance, jail is a possibility when a defendant appears before the Commissioner.

Continue reading "Maryland Court Finds a Right to Represenation at Initial Appearance" »

The Maryland Court of Special Appeals issued a ruling last week in a case that could have long-reaching effects on police interrogation, overturning a trial court's suppression of a Defendant's statements based on a finding that he was not in custody when he incriminated himself. Although the case will surely be appealed, if the Court of Special Appeals' ruling is upheld, a loophole in the requirement that police officers provide arrested individuals their "Miranda rights" has been expanded.

The rights protected by the United States Supreme Court's decision in Miranda v. Arizona, have long been a bastion of protection for criminal defendants: these include, primarily, the right to not provide the police with self-inculpatory statements, and the right to representation by an attorney. The police know that when a suspect has an attorney representing him or her, the chances of obtaining incriminating evidence against that suspect drop off precipitously. Our experienced Annapolis criminal defense attorneys have the background necessary to protect these and other rights that criminal defendants have at their disposal.

In State v. Thomas, the Defendant Thomas was interrogated at a police station regarding allegations that he had sexually assaulted his 14-year-old daughter. After a pre-trial suppression hearing, the trial court found that a reasonable person in the Defendant's position - sitting in a police interrogation room with the door closed, albeit unlocked, and being questioned about having sex with his daughter - would not have felt free to leave. The trial court also determined that the detectives were not merely asking questions to determine what had happened; they were actively trying to develop a case against the Defendant. As the trial court stated, "[the detectives] were gathering evidence. 'What did you do? Where was she touched? When did it start? How many times did you do it?' And the argument is that Miranda warnings should not have been given?"

The trial court continued, "[a]t the end of the day, the query remains, what is wrong with giving people their Miranda rights? And I'll tell you what's wrong with it. As soon as defendants are given their Miranda warnings, they often lawyer up. And when they lawyer up, they don't get the information that detectives want to get."

The State appealed the evidence suppression under Section 12-302 of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article of the Maryland Code, which permits interlocutory appeals under very limited circumstances. Following the appeal, the Court of Special Appeals overturned the trial court's suppression. There are a number of factors that the Court had to weigh to determine whether the interrogation at the police station was "custodial." These include:

when and where it occurred, how long it lasted, how many police were present, what the officers and the defendant said and did, the presence of actual physical restraint on the defendant or things equivalent to actual restraint such as drawn weapons or a guard stationed at the door, and whether the defendant was being questioned as a suspect or as a witness. Facts pertaining to events before the interrogation are also relevant, especially how the defendant got to the place of questioning whether he came completely on his own, in response to a police request or escorted by police officers. Finally, what happened after the interrogation whether the defendant left freely, was detained or arrested may assist the court in determining whether the defendant, as a reasonable person, would have felt free to break off the questioning.

Pre-Interrogation

The Court of Special Appeals determined that since the Defendant had driven himself at the station at the mere request, rather than demand, of the police officers, that there was no coercion on the part of the police in getting him to the station.

Continue reading "Maryland Appellate Court Reverses Trial Court's Suppression Ruling" »